So I said... #22 - for May 27 - June 4

The latest entry in my continuing attempts to offer something of value here. So I said… consists of comments and observations I’ve made on various topics in various places over the last week or so. Comments and reactions are always welcome.

Onward.

2026-05-27
[Ken Paxon’s creepy victory speech went on about James Talarico having said “God is binary” and “there are six sexes.”]

God is binary? Hell, I figured that out when I was maybe 8. I remember asking my mother why we call God “Him” because “if he’s a spirit, he has no body and so isn’t a man or a woman.” (She answered - not in these words, I’m sure, because, y’know, I’m 8 and all, in terms of it being a social convention.)

And indeed there’s good Biblical basis for a binary God in Genesis 1:27: “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” (NIV) If God created male and female in his own image, God must contain both male and female and so must be binary.

Oh, and as for “six sexes?” If the right wingers insist on defining by chromosomes, there are at least six. Besides XX and XY, there are X0 (called “X naught”), XXY, XXYY, and XXXY. While these variations (there are a few more) are rare, they are quite real, involving thousands of births in the US every year. And that’s without getting into the weeds of XX individuals having male bodies and XY ones having female bodies.

==

2026-05-30
[A troll called the Kennedy Center a “failing institution” and heaped praise on TOO (aka The Orange Overlord); the “failing” line was based an article reporting the TOO Board’s claims the institution is deep in the red.]

The article you cited does not, in fact, support your argument. It includes claims from Trump’s hand-picked board at the Kennedy Center, claims that treat this non-profit organization as if it was a profit-seeking private business, punctuated with the assertion from the PR agent that those there before the hostile takeover consciously and deliberately intended the Center to lose money.

Meanwhile, the same article notes both that the Center’s most recent tax filings show a profit and the fact that performing arts nonprofits typically run a deficit on operational costs and rely on grants and contributions to overcome it - in fact, that is “best practice in the sector” - and the claims of the Trump’s hand-picked board ignored that fact.

I think it’s clear that you do not hang out here to make actual arguments, but just to troll. Admittedly, you’re rather good at that, but I don’t think it’s a skill to be admired.

But what the hell, happy Memorial Day anyway, since I’m old enough to think of it still as May 30.

-

2026-05-30
[They replied “Wrong!” and how TOO would have made it great, complete with random capitalizations.]

I take it back. You’re not even a good troll. That was utterly unoriginal and not in any way clever or challenging. OTOH, other than being too short it would make for a decent Truth Social post, so I suppose that makes you very proud of yourself.

I’m done here.

==

2026-05-30
[Some Xian nationalists made themselves a movie about how oppressed they are.]

There is a rarely-explored reason for the “we’re so oppressed” whining from Xian nationalists: They want to, even need to, feel oppressed as proof of their faith. The New Testament is full of references to this idea. (All references NIV.)

For example, Jesus taught “Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:10) and “You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved” (Matt. 10:22).

Paul said “we glory in our sufferings” (Romans 5:3), James wrote “consider it pure joy whenever you face trials of many kinds” (James 1:2-4), and there are multiple references to “perseverance” leading to your “reward.”

In short, telling themselves they are “oppressed” is to tell themselves that they are right there with Jesus and are among the elect who will be “saved.” It’s certainly easier and less demanding a route than to live by such as 1 John 3:17 (“If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person?”).

==

2026-05-30
[An article outlined how using AI undermined “Business Insider,” leading to four years of staff cuts and the loss of 25% of its subscribers.]

Maybe AI should stand for Artificial Insemination: getting screwed by a machine.

==

2026-05-31
[A new plan for re-doing Penn Station was leaked; it included engraving TOO’s name by the main entrance.]

I’m a bit confused about Amtrak’s involvement, since Amtrak is now based in NYC out of the new Moynihan Station, not Penn Station. As for the design, I’m not a fan of gold trim, which has seemed gaudy since maybe 1920. And one real question: What is the point of “an additional 50 feet of overhead space” other than pointless attempts at a fake grandeur that passengers will forget the moment they leave while significantly expanding the volume of air to be heated and cooled? And unless the current ceilings are like six or seven feet, connecting it to the station being “cramped” is more like ad copy than reportage.

Could the old station use a refurbishing? Sure, and I’ve been there enough to see. But this plan looks like “grand” for the sake of seeming grand and gold-trimmed for the sake of looking golden - while function is “oh yeah, that too, I suppose.”

In architectural design, as in most everything else, less can be more. This one appears from what I know of it as too much.

==

2026-06-01
This is something I wrote to a friend sometime in the 1990s about the social and political differences between right and left that I think bears repeating from time to time:

-

It’s the right that says “I,” the left that says “we.” It’s the right that says “gimme,” the left that says “we’ll give.” It’s the right that says “compete,” the left that says “cooperate.”

Where the left says “us together,” the right says “me first.” Where the left says “hope,” the right says “fear.” Where the left says “you can come for help,” the right says “you can go to hell.”

Time after time after time, the left argues for choices that primarily benefit the needy. Time after time after time, the right argues for choices that primarily benefit the needless.

Time after time after time, when folks on the left benefit from their proposals it’s because they’re part of a broader community. Time after time after time, when folks on the right benefit from their proposals it’s because they’re part of a narrow clique.

It is the left, not the right, that knows that the real answer to Cain’s question is “Yes.”

==

2026-06-02
[Todd Blanch - not a typo, the thought of him takes the color from my face - says the DOJ is “not moving forward” with The Orange Overlord’s slush fund but won’t put it in writing.]

His own words - “the reasons [for the slush fund] remain important” - explain exactly why it needs to be in writing.

==

2026-06-03
[A Connecticut law said parents under investigation for abuse or neglect can’t be approved to homeschool their children. GOPpers opposed it.]

And so much for it’s all about “SAVE THE CHILDREN!!” when it comes to LGBTQ+, especially trans, issues.

==

2026-06-04
[A Xian in LA is suing because his employer wouldn’t let him work at home during June so he didn’t have to go past a pride flag hung at the entrance. One accommodation offered was a different parking space to make another entrance more convenient, which he said would amount to “separate but equal” facilities.]

I wonder how he’d respond to being asked if that meant anyone who normally used that other entrance was a victim of actionable discrimination.

But in fact he has no standing to raise any complaint about “separate but equal” facilities when that is exactly what he is demanding for himself, it’s just that in his case the “separate” facility is his house.

My advice to him is to do what every one his fundamentalist ilk tell people who object to the 10 Commandments being put on a wall of every classroom: You don’t like it? Just don’t look at it. Which is, in this case, a viable option.

==

2026-06-04
I couldn’t help but notice that the female symbol [on a “straight pride” flag] is rotated 90 degrees clockwise from its standard orientation, making it appear that the figure is lying on its back and the male symbol is, well, you get the idea.

Obviously it’s intended to sexualize children into the ideology of heterosexuality. Those grooming perverts.

So I said... for February 25 to March 4

Updated to include links, which I failed to include before posting.

The next issue of my irregular compilation of comments I’ve made at various places on various issues over the past week or so, with some added context as seemed needed.

2026-02-25
[In the SOTU, the Orange Overlord endorsed forced school outing of trans kids.]

What still seems so tragic to me that is I can recall from a good number of years ago PSAs on TV (okay, maybe it was radio; the words are what I remember) telling children that if there were problems at home and they needed help, to tell an adult, including, I remember this specifically, “a trusted teacher.”

Now, that’s simply no longer true. If you’re trans and home feels like a hostile environment, a teacher is someone you dare not trust. Not just because they might expose you to your parents but because they might have no choice in the matter, so you remain silent, feeling trapped and isolated and alone - and potentially suicidal.

Ignorance leads to fear (transphobia). Fear leads to hate (transmisia). Hate leads to inflicting suffering. And the infliction of suffering will be described as doing good - because the alternative is facing the reality of what it is being done and that is too much to bear.

[Footnote: “Tell a trusted adult” is still standard guidance. The issue is, if you’re a trans child, who could such a person be?]

==

2026-02-26
[H.R. 7661, introduced hours after the SOTU, would prohibit schools from “promoting” or “facilitating” anything involving “gender dysphoria” or “transgenderism” and codify the idea that anything to do with trans people is “sexually explicit.” The only thing other than being trans designated “sexually explicit” is depictions of sexual intercourse as defined in 18 USC §2256.]

This just goes to confirm what I’ve been saying for a long time: These are mentally disturbed, ethically warped people driven nearly mad by their obsession with sex such that they can’t conceive of being transgender as a matter of who a person is but only in terms of how they “do it” and “what’s in their pants” and all their attempts at disappearing trans folks are really attempts to repress their hidden, lurid, guilty fantasies.

==

2026-02-27
A simple question I have not seen asked regarding impending war on Iran:

WHAT THE FLAMING HELL IS “COMMERCIAL-GRADE ENRICHED WEAPONS MATERIAL??”

I have to assume the “enriched weapons material” refers to enriched uranium or plutonium. The only sense I can make of “commercial grade” is that it’s enriched to a degree useful for commercial applications - specifically, running a nuclear reactor.

That’s an enrichment level of 3-5% (i.e. 3-5% of the fuel is actual U-235 or Pu-239). Weapons-grade is >90% enriched.

So unless there is some explanation of which I am unaware, the administration of The Orange Overlord and his coterie of clowns and lickspittle liars is threatening to go to war because Iran is “a week away” from being able to operate a nuclear reactor.

[I made essentially the same comment just in a shorter form on another site on March 1 in reply to the observation that “they’ve been saying Iran is days away from producing nuclear weapons for decades. They’re probably hoping we don’t remember that so they can justify what he wants to do.]

==

2026-02-27
[In the Orange Overlord’s SOTU he said “The first duty of government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens.” The same day, a nearly-blind, non-English-speaking Burmese refugee was found dead after being dumped by CPB at night, in a Buffalo winter, five miles from his home.]

“If he’s going to die, the better he do it sooner, so to reduce the illegal population!”

Seems to me I heard that or something like it sometime in I think it was December.

==

2026-02-28
So Secretary of “War is Peace” Pete “Manly Man” Hogsbreath says the Pentagon has made a deal with Scouting America to eliminate DEI programs and end tolerance of transgender scouts.

To the relief of some, the group declared it would still “have transgender people in our program going forward.”

For my part, I’ll hold my applause until I hear more details. The statement says that yes, trans kids are still welcome - but it does not say that they will not be programmatically segregated by birth sex nor does it say anything about the cutting back on or elimination of DEI programs.

Suppose some state said “Of course trans people are welcome to use our bathrooms or compete in sports - as long as they do it according to their sex assigned at birth.” Would that satisfy? Because it shouldn’t.

This may turn out better than I think it sounds, but I’ll need to be convinced it isn’t just a smokescreen over what is essentially a surrender.

In any event and personally, I think Scouting America should tell the Pentagon to, as I used to put it, “remove thyself to an alternate location, there to engage in autoerotic activities” - i.e., GFY. Crafts, outdoor camping, and sports should not be pipelines to the military.

==

2026-02-28
[In response to the same announcement, someone noted the Scouts are significantly dependent on the DOD, e.g., the Corps of Engineers maintains a lot of Summer Camp infrastructure.]

Yes, and why do they do it? Civic duty? Contribution to the public good?

Nah. It’s because Scouting America acts - whether consciously or by default - as recruitment for the military. The group will even brag about how many of its participants wind up in the military.

==

2026-03-01
[Robert Reich referred again to how offended he was by Randy Newman’s song “Short People.”]

Randy Newman’s song “Short “People” was intended as a satire about prejudice. Apparently he was unaware of the prejudice based on height, saying later he couldn’t see why people would think that anyone “was as crazy as that character” or something to that effect. It was not his only satirical song about bigotry where he spoke in the voice of the bigot, it was just the one that became well known. If you still wonder, you should read the lyrics to see that it is deliberately way over the top.

Just remember, Newman also wrote “Political Science” in which he said we should “drop the big one” on everybody because everybody hates us - except on Australia because we “don’t wanna hurt no kangaroo.” Failing to recognize obvious satire is a rookie mistake.

==

2026-03-01
So I see people saying “Iran is just another distraction from Epstein.”

NOT EVERYTHING IS A DISTRACTION, DAMMIT!

This is a real war with real people really dying, not a damn sideshow and I guarantee you it’s not a “distraction” to the people doing the suffering and dying.

Do you really think that there would be no war, no attacks on immigrants, no undermining of science and public health, no stripping of LGBTQ+, particularly trans, rights, no voter suppression, no pushing of white Christian nationalism, no assertions of near-dictatorial powers, no threats about Greenland or Canada, no the list just goes on and on and on, if it wasn’t for Epstein?

Get a flaming grip!

[This resulted in my being accused of being unconcerned with child rape so I’ll add this addendum, something I apparently should have included but didn’t because I thought it was apparent: When you label something as “a distraction,” you are saying it is unimportant, irrelevant, not worthy of attention and can be safely ignored; in fact it should be ignored so as to keep all focus on whatever is claimed in the particular case to be the singular “real” issue.

As horrific as the facts and the further implications surrounding the Epstein files are, I find myself incapable of letting pass without resistance all the other examples of heinousness coming from the court of the Orange Overlord. I will make no apologies for that and I reject the underlying suggestion that those actions would not have been undertaken, that is, were done only to serve as distractions, were it not for Epstein.]

==

2026-03-03
[Hemant Mehta wrote about his doubts about a story that a combat-lever commander told officers under their command that Donald Trump was “anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon,” leading to the Second Coming.]

I come to this as, if you will, a virgin, as while I had seen the headline on [Jonathan] Larsen’s story, I hadn’t read it. I still haven’t.

That said, I was put off by your “just asking questions” approach, one that despite your disclaimers came across much more as debunking the story than as expressing healthy skepticism.

For example, you took a couple of personal shots at [Mikey] Weinstein[, President and Founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, the source of the story] - “he brags about being repeatedly nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize,” “every email publicized by MRFF reads more like an internal fundraising email,” the group “takes in a lot of donations on the backs of stories like these,” he personally gets paid about $375,000, about half the group’s total income - while insisting they’re not relevant or “not accusations, just observations.” Then why bring them up?

What’s more, some of your “red flags” aren’t even flags, much less red ones. So the theology expressed by this commander isn’t the same as that of Pete Hegseth? Okay, now that is irrelevant not only to the truth of the story but to the central issue of such “last days” theology being expressed in the military and how far it is being spread, if it is. 

You also said “If they’re actively editing the emails, then they need to admit that” just a few paragraphs before stating that he did precisely that when you asked for an original.

So do I think that some commander could have expressed that sort of “final days” theology to those under their command? Yes. Considering the number of examples of right-wing pastors declaring Trump was “anointed of God” to be president and “Jesus is returning,” I have no doubt.

Beyond that, I suspect that a lot of the reports were repeating scuttlebutt and that they didn’t “call a reporter” because beyond concern about being outed - seriously, how many reporters would be willing to deal with a report from someone who wouldn’t ID themselves, leaving no way know the source - they didn’t have additional info to offer and it was more a case of “I heard about this and I thought you should know.”

The question of how widespread the particular form of religious extremism involved is in the military and if it’s being promoted by higher-ups are important ones and wholly worthy of investigation. But neither was the question at hand; the reliability of the story and therefore the trustworthiness of the MRFF was.

Bottom line: At this point, do I have cause to doubt that basic story? No. And bluntly, neither do you.

==

2026-03-04
[In this case, literally “said.” A local Board of Education was considering revoking its guidance on dealing with transgender students, that is, stripping away their protections. Several folks spoke against it at the meeting; this is from what I prepared (which likely makes it seem more polished than it was as delivered).  In the end, the motion lost on a tie vote of 4-4.]

Good evening.

I come before the Board tonight to urge you to continue to support and indeed where possible to strengthen the Transgender Student Guidance.

I say this despite the fact that I am not trans, no one in my family is trans, and in fact as far as I know I do not personally know a single transgender person.

The point is, you don’t need to have a personal connection to be to be aware, to understand, to have empathy.

I was bullied growing up. A lot. I was a fat, shy, bookish kid, the kind who becomes a natural target for bullying, for mockery, being picked on, teasing, and “jokes.” The result was that I never felt connected, never felt I belonged.

It was bad enough that in my teen years I seriously considered suicide and a few years later I attempted it.

Looking back on that time, I can understand to some degree what it’s like to be trans, indeed how much harder to be trans than it was for me. Because if you’re trans, you’re not just made to feel apart, you’re actively set apart, tagged, marked  as the “other,” as the “not us” by the society around you - increasingly, even legally so.

Transgender children deserve support, protection, and encouragement sufficient to thrive of the sort that any child should be able expect in any public school.

I’m not an expert, but as a layperson I’m fairly conversant with the science involved here. But you don’t have to be an expert to know the difference between what is right and what is wrong, between fair and unfair, just and unjust, between what is kindness and what is cruelty, to recognize the difference between performative concern and concealed contempt.

So I want to again, call on the Board of Education to continue, and where possible deepen, the support. the protection, the inclusion for trans students in this school system.

What’s more, I call on you to not be deterred or stampeded by the fears, fables, and fairy tales likely to be thrown at you in the course of considering this issue but rather to adopt just some portion of the courage it takes to be transgender and embrace the right, the fair, the just, and the kind.

I want to thank the members of the Board for taking on this civic responsibility of being on the BOE and I thank you for your time.

What is this "Constitution" of which you speak?

AP reported recently that an internal ICE memo being used to train new ICE thugs declares that they can smash their way into private homes without the need for a judicial warrant required by the 4th Amendment.

All they need, according to the DHS Office of the General Counsel (in other words, DHS's own lawyer) is an administrative arrest warrant issued by the agency for someone with a final order of removal and the Constitution is totally cool with it.

What could go wrong? Oh, wait....

This news came out in the immediate wake of the case of American citizen ChongLy "Scott" Thao, the man who was dragged out of his home in St. Paul in his underwear in freezing temperatures after ICE secret police thugs smashed their way in with no warrant, screaming and pointing guns at his family. (And because of a delay in posting this clearly before the murders of Renee Good and Alex Pretti.)

The Tonton Macoute (I keep telling you: Look it up!) wannabes were supposedly after "two convicted sex offenders." In other words, it went just like the memo described and "we don't need no stinking (actual proper) warrant."

Sadly, the AP meekly described the memo as "a sharp reversal of longstanding guidance meant to respect constitutional limits on government searches." This is no "reversal of guidance" as if it's a matter of opinion or worse, convenience, and the agency is not to "respect" such limits, it is to obey them.

What this is, is an immoral, illegal, improper, infuriating rejection of a base Constitution principle on the sanctity of the home that dates back in English law to at least the early 1600s and can even be found to date from ancient Rome.

Our 4th Amendment protections have already been undermined and restricted (for example to the point that your car is often referred to as a "4th Amendment-free zone") but this is not just a bright red line, it's a line of flashing beacons and blaring klaxons.

In an earlier version of the story, one that got updated while I was first writing this, the AP reported that ICE agents sometimes wait hours for a targeted person to leave a house. Apparently we are now to accept that the Constitution must yield because their constitution cannot bear such a burden.

So I said - bits and pieces

Another gathering of random comments on various things posted by others, arranged chronologically. 

2026-01-08
Everything you need to know about today’s GOPpers in one headline: “House fails to override Trump’s vetoes of 2 bills that passed unanimously.”

Not every GOPper voted against overriding the veto, but quite enough to generalize. Craven weaklings unworthy of public office.

==

2026-01-09
ICE has become little more than an armed, masked, secret police, increasingly populated with Tonton Macoute wannabes.

If we’re not going to have open borders (which I do think is an arguable position*) we have to have some kind of border control and some way to enforce it, roles for which both ICE in particular and DHS in general have proven incapable of fulfilling in a humane or even Constitutional manner.

Thus my new slogan, deliberately intended to tweak the MAGAs:

“ICE: Repeal and Replace!”

==

2026-01-09
[Background: An attorney was fined $400,000, upheld on appeal, for informing a school that one of their staff was previously involved in sex with a minor on the grounds that it violated a confidentiality agreement regarding a bankruptcy case. The judge said the fine was based on the cost of the investigation.

The question was are the courts at in any way at fault for what seems to be an injustice or were they just constrained by the law.]

Of course both the district and appeals courts at least potentially bear some of the blame.

Is there a law saying that the fine must be based on the “cost of the investigation?” If so, the courts should have required a proof of that cost - meaning receipts, detailed accounts, and not vague items like “hours billed.” If there is not such a law, the court should have ignored that cost as a basis for the fine. In either event, the district court could have withheld judgment for the moment while encouraging the sides to negotiate a lesser amount.

So unless there is both a law specifically stating that the fine is to be based on the cost of the investigation and a detailed proof of those costs, then either court could have at the least found the fine excessive and even included in their rulings (even if it didn’t affect the judgment) some reference to the potential harm avoided by [attorney Richard] Trahant’s actions.

I’m reminded yet again of Joni Mitchell’s lyric (in “Sex Kills”): “Is justice just ice/Driven by greed and lust?/Just the strong doing what they can/And the weak suffering what they must?”

=

2026-01-12
I will not forward, “like,” or discuss memes or vids or whatever that do not source the claim made.

I’ve had more than enough experiences of asking for a source (which you’d think the poster had) only to be told some version of “find it yourself” to have confidence in the conclusion that they don’t have one, they either just made it up or, more likely, are just reposting something that itself had no source.

==

2026-01-12
[Background: Responding to Congressional Democrats failing to oppose an anti-trans law, someone asked “Do they still expect trans people to vote for them despite this harm they’re causing us?”]

The answer to your question is yes.

This, bluntly, is SOP, par for the course, choose your cliché, but in any case long-standing policy for the institutional Democratic Party. It’s not just trans rights, it’s a range of issues where they figure that as long as they can be or at least present themselves as any degree to the left of the GOPpers, it’s “Hey, whadda you gonna do? Vote for that crowd? It’s us or nuthin’.” They see no downside to taking the left flank of voters for granted.

And if you dare to mutter phrases like “won’t vote” or worse yet “third party,” you’ll be treated as a child to be scolded and shamed rather than an adult to be engaged.

==

2026-01-14
In discussing oral arguments before SCOTUS on two suits relating to bans on transgender students in sports, Chris Geidner (Law Dork) suggested they revealed a shift in tone toward avoiding a wide-ranging decision with Constitutional implications, so that while the bans in question would be upheld, it would be done in a manner that it only applied to those particular cases and would leave open the option for other jurisdictions to allow students to participate according to their gender. That is, states could have such a ban but allowing participation based on gender would not violate Title IX, despite the plaintiff's claims.

Now, this of course was oral arguments so is no guarantee of the shape of the ultimate ruling, but according to Geidner the Justices seemed interested in avoiding basic questions about trans rights under the Title.

Which leaves me feeling if there is such a word quasi-optimistic, which is about as good as it gets on this topic these days. There are undoubtedly hard - make that even harder - times ahead but I still believe in the line about the arc of the moral universe.

So I take hope in the shift in tone represented by Kavanaugh’s remark that “one of the themes of your argument has been the more people learn, the more they’ll agree with you.“ I do it both because that is true and because perhaps that, again, shift in tone is the result of some members of the Court starting to think “um this whole business is more complicated than I originally thought.”

And consider that in the period 1998-2008, 26 states added to their state Constitutions provisions banning same-sex marriage at tine when opposition to those rights ran at about 60%. They did it because support was slowly rising and the reactionaries, aware of that fact, pushed these amendments to lock in their bigotry at a time when they could still get people worked up over it.

Despite that, it continued to be an issue, support continued to rise, in 2015 SCOTUS struck all of them down, and polls over the past two years show 67-69% of the public supporting same-sex marriage.

It’s unclear who originated the saying “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes” (no, it wasn’t Mark Twain). No matter; with some recent polls saying that a clear majority of Republican voters think their party is way too concerned with trans rights issues, I don’t feel it remiss to listen for the perhaps faint but still perceptible sound of rhyming chimes.

==

2025-01-14
The Democratic-controlled New Jersey legislature has broken a promise to enact a trans shield law in the post-election session, generating a sense of betrayal.

It's a well-justified reaction, yet we should for the moment recall that NJ has an Executive Order in place that functions as a shield and that stays in force until it's overturned or superseded by law.

I have urged [out-going] Gov. [Phil] Murphy to call on the legislature to turn his EO into law without success, so now we have to push [Governor-elect Mikie] Sherrill to do it.

I rather suspect the lack of post-election action arises from a feeling of “We’ve got the shield EO, why raise what might be a contentious issue?” More specifically, I suspect the reason for the idea of a post-election vote was intended as a backstop against the possibility of a win in the governor’s race by Trump-lover Jack Ciattarelli, who certainly would have revoked Murphy’s EO. Since the moderate Mikie Sherrill, who has a pretty good record on LGBTQ+ (including transgender) issues, won, the members of the legislature felt no urgency to deal with it.

None of which changes the fact that there should be a law, not just an EO, and we should be pressing for that.

==

2026-01-16
[Background: In response to a 2015 TikTok from John Cena about what makes an "average American," someone asked "WTF happened?"]

WTF happened is that we got lazy, we thought those issues were pretty much settled, that the bastards, bigots, and buffoons had shrunk far enough away that we could coast to the finish line, ignoring or ignorant enough of the fact that the diverse America we saw emerging that was so pleasing to us - one with a “non-majority majority” in which no racial/ethnic group is a majority of the population - was instead terrifying to many of the existing majority whose internal conception of what it means to be “American” is being undermined by that reality.

 *See, for example, https://whoviating.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-erickson-report-page-4-longer-look.html

A step toward the nightmare

I have several times referred to ICE and DHS agents as "Tonton Macoute wannabes." For those who don't know and don't want to have to look it up, the Tonton Macoute or just Macoute was a vicious "secret" police and paramilitary force who reported directly to Haitian dictator François "Papa Doc" Duvalier. (I put "secret" in quotes because there was nothing secret about them; everyone knew damned well who they were.)

It was regarded as among the most brutal such forces in the entire world and its criminality extended beyond suppressing any and all opposition: Its members were effectively a law unto themselves, able to steal, murder, torture, and rape as they pleased both because resisting or objecting was a death sentence and Duvalier didn't give a damn as long as he was in his palace and the grift kept rolling.

Well, it appears our own masked secret police is a step closer to achieving its dream.

Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon has decided not to investigate Jonathan Ross, the ICE good who murdered repeat murdered Renee Good.

Not only will he not be prosecuted, not only will he not even be charged, he will not even be investigated. The regime can't even be bothered to, indeed refuses to, look at what happened because they are terrified of the meaning of what they would see, what they already have seen, what they already know. Better to evade the knowledge he would be - and through that their embrace of thuggery would be - convicted. Better to pretend it didn't happen the way they know it did, better to smear accuse and blame and investigate the victim (Renee Good - say her name) on some impossibly vague charge of being "involved with the activist groups that have been protesting Trump’s immigration agenda," better to try to turn "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" into "domestic terrorism."

Better to put Ross - whose name, interestingly, is pretty much absent from news coverage, where he is just "the ICE agent" - beyond the law, the better to ignore what he represents, let him be answerable, it seems, only to the Orange Overlord - who, like Duvalier, just doesn't give a damn as long as he is in his palace and the grift keeps rolling.

And the ghost of Papa Doc smiles "Now you're getting it."

Remigration - the one word to rule them all

Welcome to all Jon Swift Roundup readers.

 

I write on a variety of political topics, so if you find my writing interesting or worthwhile, I invite you to check out my blog (whoviating.blogspot.com) or my free Substack (whoviating.substack.com).

 

Comments and other reactions are always welcome.

 

 [This should have gone out a few days ago, but production was slowed by events of the past week involving a fainting spell, a trip to the ER where it was discovered that I had a heart rate repeatedly dropping to like 22 with a BP of something like 85/13, a heartbeat ever more irregular than it already was, and oh by the way I have COVID. 

I left with a pacemaker and (due to wrestling with that damn hospital bed while wearing a heart monitor) a pinched nerve with the result that I can only work for about 10 minutes before my shoulder hurts so much I can't concentrate and have to take a break. Hope it was worth the wait....]

They said it. Not by second-hand reference, not by implication or suggestion or as a passing reference buried in a longer list, but right out. And not for the first time. But this time in shouting all caps.

Just before midnight on Thanksgiving, our rapidly-decomposing Orange Overlord turned to his sickenly-misnamed “Truth” Social for a deranged screed labeling immigration as the root of all our evils¹ - one punctuated with “Only REVERSE MIGRATION can finally cure this situation.”

And there it is. Maybe this time we will finally notice.

“Reverse migration,” you see, is a longer version of “remigration,” once a neutral, descriptive term with no overlying meaning. It meant simply homecoming, of a return to a place you previously lived. It was used, for example, following the end of World War II to refer to Jews who had fled Nazi Germany or Nazi-controlled territory in Europe who were returning to where they had lived before.

However over past couple of decades, particularly over the last 10-15 years and particularly in Europe, the right wing has taken hold of it and as often happens when the right wing grabs onto something, it has been twisted into a vile encapsulation of their inhumanities and unreasoning hatreds.

Put perhaps over simply but still accurately, the right wing saw an opportunity to spread their bigoted, racist xenophobia by amplifying the increasing resentment about both immigrants from Africa and refugees, particularly from Ukraine. “Remigration” was twisted from a straightforward reference to relocating to a previous home into a rallying cry first for kicking out any refugees and then to kicking out all foreigners, whether they had legal status or not.

The concept expanded, as such fanaticism invariably does, in this case to pushing for the “forced return” - the active expulsion - of all non-white immigrants and their children, regardless of their birthplace or citizenship; indeed, it meant forcing them back to their “ancestral home,” their home of racial ancestry, no matter how long their family had lived in Europe.

In other words, “remigration” is a wink-and-a-nod substitute for ethnic cleansing and racial-cultural lily white hegemony.

The driving philosophical idea - although I feel dirty using a fine phrase for such a low concept - the driving idea has been a rebirth in Europe of the idea of “Völkisch” (“people”), an ethno-nationalist movement from the late 1800s which under the Nazis became a policy in law of having to be, it was said, German (mostly, non-Jewish) “enough” to be a citizen.

After the defeat of the Nazis, those laws were scrapped - but like the man said, “Fanaticism is ever busy and needs feeding. Always it is feeding and gloating for more.”² “Völkisch” was rebranded as “Völkisch nationalism,” basically the same racist ideas with a little bit of dressing up - replacing references to “race” with “culture,” for example - without being explicitly antisemitic.

For example, in France, the Nouvelle Droite (“New Right”) emerged during the late 1960s to argue that different ethnicities require their own segregated living spaces, creating a need for remigration of people with “foreign roots.” The ND, as it’s called, gained some importance in the 1980s amid right-wing cries of “La France aux Français” (“France for the French”).

In Germany, the slogan is “Deutschland den Deutschen, Ausländer raus” (“Germany for Germans, foreigners out”) - bringing us to elections in Germany this past February in which the extreme-right Alternative für Deutschland (Alternative for Germany) - the AfD³, you remember, the party that Elon Musk and J.D. Vance wanted Germans to support - got 20.8% of the vote, making it the largest opposition party in the Bundestag and the second largest overall.

That degraded duo of Musk and Vance serves to bring it home to the US version.

On October 27, 2024, at a campaign rally at Madison Square Garden, Stephen “Voldemort” Miller, the driving force for this in the campaign (and now in the White House) declared in a deliberate echo of the extremist cries in Europe, “America Is For Americans And Americans Only.”⁴

As I wrote at the time,

I’m surprised that more people have not emphasized the fact that the references have moved from bizarrely false claims about “illegal” immigrants to being about immigrants, period, claims given an exclamation point by Steven Miller’s goose-stepping.

No more the fig leaf of “if only they’d do it legally, there would be no problem.” No more the differentiation of the “bad hombres” from the “good hombres.” Just naked hatred for and irrational fear of any and all among “the other.”

This is fascism fulfilled, paranoia as policy, systematized xenophobia.

It was explicit, it was overt; the extremism, the meaning, was there for all to see - and most of the media to ignore.

And while this was perhaps until that time the most emphatic revelation of their intentions, it was definitely not the first. Mother Jones, for one, flagged it two months earlier, quoting a post from the Orange Soon-to-be-Overlord referring to “return[ing] Kamala’s illegal migrants to their home countries (also known as remigration)” and Voldemort reposting it with “THE TRUMP PLAN TO END THE INVASION OF SMALL TOWN AMERICA: REMIGRATION!”

It was out there - but even then, even after Miller’s invocation of the overtly racist slogans of the furthest of Europe’s far right, still too much of the media (and, bluntly, too many of the rest of us) essentially sleep-walked our way through the declarations, preferring to see it all as a re-run of the old “illegal immigrants invading our country/stealing our jobs/blah-blah-blah” rabble-rousing bullshit.

But it wasn’t. Or, perhaps more accurately, it was the smokescreen. Because it isn’t about undocumented immigrants and for people like Miller it never was. For them, it’s always been about immigrants, period - or, again more accurately, non-white immigrants.

As soon as they got into office, they went to work. The Spray Tan Who Would Be King suspended the nation’s 40-year-old refugee resettlement program on his first day in office.

A few - emphasize few - highlights from the rest of the year:

In April, the White House cabal filed a brief in federal court claiming they can deport someone for their “beliefs, statements or associations.” This came the same day that ICE shared (and then deleted) a social media post saying that it is responsible for keeping illegal “ideas” from entering the US.

In May, the White House announced that an agency called the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, historically involved in supporting refugee programs, would be restructured to “reflect core administration priorities,” including an Office of Remigration to “revers[e] the flow of migrants” and focus on “Western values.”

In June despite the suspension of refugee resettlement, a group of about 50 white South Africans entered as “refugees” fleeing a non-existent “white genocide,” not only going to the front of the line for vetting, but skipping over it entirely.

In July, AttGen Pam Bondage⁵ directed that federal application forms and processes must only be in English, a step to implement the executive order declaring English the official language of the US.

That same month, “border czar” Tom Homan⁶ said ICE and Border Patrol don’t need probable cause to detain and question someone; their “physical appearance” (read: skin color) is enough, a notion to which the Scurrilous SCOTUS Six later gave their blessing.

In September, the Orange Overlord declared that no more than 7500 refugees would be admitted in 2026, just 6% of the number in Biden’s last year. Most of those slots will go to white South African farmer “refugees” like the group that arrived in June.

Over the course of the year they have attacked the idea of DACA and have seized people under its protection.

They have striven to strip protection from temporary protective status (TPS) recipients, more than 1.2 million people who fled wars, oppression, natural disasters, poverty, and more and who have permission to live and work in the US.

They have made a practice of rejecting the concept of due process, dismissing it in theory and denying it in practice.

They’ve openly talked about denaturalization, stripping people of their citizenship, even aggressively pursuing cases.

They’ve even attacked the notion of birthright citizenship, including pressing the Supreme Court for support.

Which brings us to November and Thanksgiving and the deranged post I mentioned at the top, the core of which multi-screen screed can be found in just three statements, which in a way can sum up the entire argument. In order of appearance, they are:

One: The “foreign population stands at 53 million people, most of which are on welfare, from failed nations, or from prisons, mental institutions, gangs, or drug cartels.”

The population figure is from the Census Bureau and it is a count of all “foreign-born” residents of the US, no matter their status - which means it includes not only the long-demonized “illegals” but any who are here legally, including those covered by DACA or TPS, who have asylum claims pending, who have green cards, and who are naturalized citizens, all thrown into one, we might call it, basket of deplorables to be condemned and reviled for the ethnic crime of being foreign-born.

Two: This supposed “refugee burden” is “the leading cause of social dysfunction in America, something that did not exist after World War II.”

The other side of the always-evil present in these xenophobic dreamscapes is the always-glorious, wonderful, mythologized past, one in which, we are here told, there was no crime, no shortage of health care or housing, no urban decay, and no student failed or was failed, at least not enough to care about. It depends on both ignorance of the present and amnesia about the past. That is why history is their enemy and why they’re looking to, for one example, scrub LGBTQ+, particularly trans, history: not just to sanitize US history, but to fantasize, to infantilize, it, the better to turn the past into a weapon of control.

Three: He wants to “deport any foreign national who is ... non-compatible with Western Civilization.”

Which, we can safely assume, would exclude any non-Christians - especially Muslims, indeed I expect it was said with them in mind. (I suppose Jews would be okay. For now.) But questions of “non-compatibility” are not limited to religions but can include cultures. Remember the French New Right and the argument that different ethnicities require segregated living spaces.

Which brings up another, related, and final point. Although I’ve been addressing immigration mostly, don’t think for a moment that this is unrelated to, in fact do know it is wholly intertwined with, their attacks on DEI. Because diversity is exactly what repels them, inclusion is exactly what they can’t abide, and equity is exactly what denies their racial supremacy.

It’s all part of the same overriding racist, xenophobic, white supremicist, Christian nationalist worldview, an openly and consciously fascist ideology, rooted in a vision of racial and ethnic purity that sees non-white people as undeserving of citizenship or even basic human rights.

It is a worldview, an ideology, the Orange Overlord and his minions, most particularly Steven Voldemort Miller, have firmly embraced and are pushing for, trying to wrench our society into their personal warped, evil, dreamscape of a white ethno-state untouched by the contamination of lesser beings.

That’s what they’re after, those are the stakes. And as their speech becomes more openly exclusionary, more eliminationist, it’s ever more important that we never forget and we never let them pretend otherwise.

1 And here you thought it was the love of what he most passionately desires: money. (1 Timothy 6:10, Luke 12:15, Matthew 6:24)
2 Clarence Darrow during the Scopes Trial, Dayton, Tennessee (July 13, 1925). (Yes, the movie used an actual trial quote.)
3 In May, Germany’s Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution classified the AfD as a “confirmed right-wing extremist endeavor” that “threatens democracy.” The classification was suspended a week later, awaiting a final court decision.
4 If you want to see the video, it’s here.
5 Because she keeps getting tied up in legal knots trying to make sense of the regime’s legal arguments.
6 Good last name for him because, y’know, it’s almost human.

Surrounded by reptiles - and I don't mean the alligators

Snickering over it being an “Alligator Alcatraz,” Florida AttGen James Uthmeier announced plans for a "one stop shop" at a decrepit airfield in the Everglades with the goal of confining 1,000 kidnapped immigrants. 

Environmentalists were of course and quite properly outraged by the plan and the damage it will do to the environmentally-prized and -sensitive region while other folks decried the inhumanity involved - as if either mattered to the conglomeration of ass-kissers, boot-lickers, grifters, and self-dealers who make up the royal court of The Spray Tan Who Would Be King.

The site would be one of several in the state to hold imprison up to 5,000 people to be removed from our insufficiently white population as part of the state's contribution toward enacting the xenophobic rantings of their liege.

But I have to admit what stood out to me was how these deportation dungeons would be paid for. Reports the Post:

"The state can be reimbursed for the estimated $450 million cost of the detention centers by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, according to DHS."

According to Department for the Protection of the Fatherland secretary and cosplay addict Kristi Noem, the money would come from FEMA’s Shelter and Services Program, which was created by Congress to provide grants to groups and state/local governments who provide services to immigrants awaiting legal proceedings. That is, it was created at least with the idea of helping immigrants who are going through the legal system - aka "doing it the right way." Instead, it will now be used for what bluntly amount to prisons intended to cage people until they can be kicked out.

So FEMA will pay for them. FEMA, the agency that is supposed to, designed to, created to, assist local communities in recovering from natural disasters, the agency that is perpetually short of money to cover costs related to our climate-change-driven storms, floods, and fires, the agency whose bosses confirmed just a few days earlier that there would not be any aid to the state of Washington for recovery from a bomb cyclone that hit in November, that FEMA is going to pay to for this latest paean to perversity.

On the other hand, I guess we shouldn't be the least surprised since King Donald the I (that's a pronoun, not a Roman numeral) intends to "wind down" FEMA "after hurricane season" - doesn't want to risk impacting Florida - and assume personal control over who gets help and how much which I'm sure will be distributed on exactly the sort of impartial, non-partisan standard for which he is so famous.

As a footnote to all this, we have GOT to talk about "remigration."

Happy 28th?

Happy 28th?

[I posted this on another platform (Substack) on January 21 and I was supposed to post it here but, well, I forgot. I think it is still worth a look, even if the issue, at least as far as media is concerned, vanished as fast as it arose.]

There has been justified and exuberant celebration over the statement (of course deleted post-inauguration) from Joe Biden that as far as he's concerned, the Equal Rights Amendment is part of the Constitution, with one example exulting "Woohoo! They can fight it but it’s done! Great news for human rights!" (Sorry for no credit; I misplaced the link.)

Yeah, well, hang on. It’s not quite over. In fact, delete “quite.”

For one thing, Biden said much the same thing three years ago (again deleted) and you see how far that has gotten us. This one is stronger because that time he called on Congress to ratify the ERA and this time he says, screw it, it’s already ratified. Well, good, but still, that doesn’t wrap things up.

On a practical, legal level this will simply be ignored until someone claims some law or rule is unconstitutional because it violates the ERA. That is, nothing will happen until someone forces the issue. And when that happens, I guarantee it will be accompanied by multiple arguments and suits trying to undo this historic achievement.

There will be suits about states having rescinded approval, which I think (hope?) will more likely than not fail because of (among other things) the can of worms it would open about the potential for states to pull an Emily Latella and rescind approval of amendments already enacted. (Can states secede by saying “We changed our mind, we don’t approve the Constitution?” Was the Confederacy thus properly constituted?) If I understand correctly (correct me if I’m wrong), but I think the technical term here is “no take-backs.”

Some efforts will claim that the amendment is not in force because US Archivist Colleen Shogan hasn’t published it. Those should fail - “should” because these days with this SCOTUS nothing is certain - on the grounds that an archivist is by definition a record-keeper, not a decision-maker and her role is ministerial. That is, she has no more authority to block the amendment than then-VP Mike NotWorthAFarthing had to refuse to certify the electoral count in January 2021.

And there will be suits about having exceeded the imposed and quite arbitrary time limit, which could rise to a “Well…” In a 1921 case (Dillon v. Gloss), SCOTUS found that Article V of the Constitution “implies” that proposed amendments “must be ratified, if at all, within some reasonable time after their proposal.” However, a later case (Coleman v. Miller, 1939) suggests that while Congress can set a “reasonable” deadline, what constitutes “reasonable” may be open to challenge. Further, later commentators have argued that this dicta is incorrect because the Constitution gives no such role to Congress (see Note 7 here). Which together would seem to make it difficult for our originalist and “plain text” intoners to argue straight-faced that such a time limit was “what the Founders intended” - not that they’ve never before ignored their own principles when it suited them. (This again relates to the federal archivist, of which more presently.)

Finally and perhaps most importantly, don’t be surprised if, regardless of the merits of the case at hand, some district court judge somewhere issues an injunction barring the amendment from taking effect anywhere in the country while any suits on any of those or other related issues proceed. Because I again guarantee you there are some who will do it on command.

In the meantime, however, we should all do as some are already doing and just declare “It’s over! We won!” over and over and over again. Make it an assumption under which the law should operate; treat it as a done deal, not a request or “someone do something.” I mean, at the very least it provides a basis for filing for injunctions against enforcement of anti-LGBTQ+ laws until any legal issues get resolved - which easily could take years.

However, what hasn’t taken years or even days is for the media to react to Biden’s statement with tut-tuts and tsk-tsks in dismissive tones ringing with “look at the old guy trying to look important” vibes.

For example, Politico called it “little more than an expression of [Biden’s] opinion” and a “long-shot gambit” while Faux News declared it’s “unlikely that Biden’s support will have any impact.” Slate dismissed it in a headline saying it “does nothing.” Meanwhile, AP called it "symbolic,” adding that "presidents have no role in the constitutional process" while emphasizing it "stirred aggravation among some allies" who had wanted it done sooner.

Others were no better and the all-but universal reaction came down to “But - but - the archivist!” They took it as unquestionable fact that the archivist refusing, on her own authority, to print it up and publish it is an absolute Constitutional bar to the amendment’s being part of the document. Which strikes me as much the same as saying that the Congressional Record could block any law by refusing to include it in its publication or the GPO could block any regulation by refusing to print it for distribution. She says she is relying on legal opinions from the Office of Legal Counsel that the time limit is enforceable, but the point is, that’s not her decision to make.

(Sidebar: It seems odd to me that with everyone agreeing that the president has no role to play in the amendment process, an opinion of the OLC - which is, again, an advisory opinion, not a determinative ruling - should be thought binding on the archivist, when they are all part of the Executive Branch.)

When the OFR [Office of the Federal Register] verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents

from state legislatures, her job is to issue a formal declaration

to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.

It should, must, be left to others to make the claim that the ratifications were somehow improper or without force. She is, bluntly, a clerk - not a legislature, not even a legislator, and not a judge.

And neither is the press. I used to read The Daily Howler, by this guy named Bob Somerby. I stopped because I came to see him as a obnoxious twerp forever looking to prove himself the purest, most superior “liberal” ever to work a keyboard - but I still credit him with developing one of the best tools for media analysis I’ve come across: the concept of “the script,” the idea that the media will rapidly coalesce on a way of viewing a certain issue, after which all future coverage has to be in line with that interpretation in order to be taken as “serious.”

The frame, the script, here has become “the archivist says,” and therefore the question is resolved and isn’t Biden just so cute trying to burnish his legacy with his useless opinion. That is, members of the media here are eager to just dismiss the whole thing as a one-day story not worth pursuing - as opposed to, for example, the pulsatingly exciting and important issues of “Is Tweetie-pie going to invade Greenland” (he won't) and “Will Pete Hegseth get confirmed” (he will).

Admittedly, not all the coverage ignored the open questions here and acknowledged that ultimately there are issues to be resolved by Congress or the courts (or both). But still, it seems overwhelmingly on the sake of “BFD, who cares about that old stuff when the machinations, manipulations, and madcap malevolence of The Great Orange One are just so exciting and so much fun to cover! (The absence of the word "important" is deliberate.)

There will be legal and legislative battles ahead and I have to admit that overall, the outlook isn’t good. Yes, the challenges should fail by logic and justice but a victory by the fascistic racist xenomisiacs* on a single point on any one of them could spell doom for the whole idea. I’d say our best move is to, as I said, use Biden’s statement to treat adoption of the ERA as the 28th amendment as a done deal and use it aggressively as an organizing focus.

Specifically, since everyone appears to agree that Congress could at any point say “forget the deadline, there isn’t one anymore,” thus removing Shogun’s excuse for inaction, Dems in both Houses of Congress should introduce measures to do just that. Put the xenomisiacs and other opponents of human rights in the position of having to vote against a move to approve the amendment. I would fully expect that there is no way in hell the GOPpers would allow it to come to a vote, but that very refusal should then be a point of attack.

The one thing we must not do on this or indeed anything else for the foreseeable future, is engage in preemptive capitulation, surrendering even before the battle is joined (such as can be seen here). King Lear had it right: That way madness (and despair) lies.

*The suffix “phobia” refers to fear; “misia” refers to hatred. These creatures are not afraid of foreigners, trans folks, of “the other,” they hate them. I’ve come to regularly use it whenever it applies. I got it from someone in a post about transmisiacs, but I can’t remember who, which is unfortunate because I’d really like to give them credit.

LGBTQ+ People Will Not Go Back

There was a call for people to post something today, December 3, with the above title as mass expression of support the day before SCOTUS holds oral arguments on United States v. Skrmetti, the challenge to the Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors and punishing doctors who provide it. It is the most significant case involving trans rights to reach the Supreme Court and the outcome could - make that would, no matter how it turns out - affect the future of thousands of transgender folks nationwide.

Well, I am not a member of the LGBTQ+ community - I’m, as I’ve said before, a 76-year-old cis straight white guy - but I do think myself an ally.* Because I am not a community member, I’m somewhat hesitant to think of my words here as important in any way beyond their existence as a statement of that support. And I have nothing new or profound to add to the conversation.

So I thought I would make my contribution to that conversation, to the mass declaration, a few snippets of I think related things I’ve said in the past year or so.

From September 2023:

It has become clear to the point that only deliberate dishonesty can deny it. The paranoid (and I mean that in the clinical sense) reactionaries want to disappear trans people. To wipe them from existence. Perhaps - repeat perhaps - not physically, but certainly politically, legally, socially.

But “LGBTQ+ People Are Not Going Back.”

From March 2024, when a transphobe declared “the majority of us are getting tired of” hearing about LGBTQ+, particularly transgender, issues:

Fine. Good. Just dump the bigoted laws, stop interfering with people's ability to live as who they are, stop interfering with medical care, stop trying to force trans people to live lives of secrecy as if they didn't exist, stop demeaning their humanity and denying their human rights, stop calling them "filth" and "abominations," in short just drop the whole damn thing and allow trans folks the same dignity, rights, and respect you would expect for yourself, and you'll hardly ever have to hear about it again. Otherwise, well, otherwise.

Because “LGBTQ+ People Are Not Going Back.”

From April, 2024:

The accusation of "recruitment" is an old anti-homosexual smear with laws dating back to the 1800s. When I was growing up in the '50s, I heard the claim that gay men were always seeking to "recruit" innocent boys into their "perverted lifestyle" because they couldn't reproduce on their own so it was the only way to keep the "lifestyle" going. Consider how transparently idiotic that sounds now as proof of some degree of progress.

I raise this because I want people to bear in mind that what is going on now is not a new phenomenon but a reprise of a standard playbook with a specific goal, one openly declared in a quote I swear I am going to cite over and over until referencing it becomes second nature to as many of us as possible:

"'Back to 1900' is a serviceable summation of the conservative goal." - George Will, in his syndicated column, January 2, 1995

Every time a right-winger says or proposes anything, you should envision the US in 1900, envision the state of rights, social status, and economic well-being of every marginalized person, of every black, every woman, every worker, every LGBTQ+ person, every immigrant, every everyone not among the favored elites, and remind yourself "That is what they want."

They told us. We should listen.

Because “LGBTQ+ People (And Others) Are Not Going Back.”

Again from April 2024, in response to a parent of a trans teen saying that they will aid and abet resistance and not follow unjust laws:

Ditto on the aid and abet. In the struggle for LGBTQ+ rights, as in other struggles for justice, those affected should rightly be in the lead. But there's no reason the rest of us can't stand should-to-shoulder with them.

Because “LGBTQ+ People (And Their Allies) Are Not Going Back.”

From June 2024, responding to a terf comment that trans folks can "live by whatever metric makes them happy so long as it doesn't hurt others."

What if it results in them getting hurt? Fired from their jobs? Denied health care? Getting arrested if they're caught using the "wrong" restroom? Physically attacked? Repeatedly denounced as "groomers," as a threat to children, as someone here called them, "birth defects"? Forced into conversion therapy? Or is it only okay if they stay so far in the closet that the rest of us can pretend they don't exist, just like we did for so very long about gays and lesbians? And yes, that is relevant when you consider what was said about gays and lesbians within my living memory and see the exact same things, and I mean even the exact same words, directed at trans folks today.

Because “LGBTQ+ People Are Not Going Back.”

From October 2024 in a discussion about impacts of recent changes in laws in Texas, when someone said “It’s not going to end well.”

It's not supposed to end well. That, as I'm sure you realize, is the point. It's part of making being trans so difficult, so risky, presenting such constant threat, that the pain of living a self-imposed life of hiding, of denial, of concealment, becomes preferable.

I have compared what the reactionaries want to do to trans folks to an oubliette, a medieval prison cell where prisoners were thrown and then "forgotten." (The name comes from the French "oublier," meaning "to forget.") They want it to be as if trans folks simply do not exist. Not legally, not politically, not socially, "forgotten" like a bad dream.

But “LGBTQ+ People Are Not Going Back.”

Also from October 2024, reacting to a call for building coalitions in face of attacks on LGBTQ+ rights:

I know I'm revealing my age, but I recall the Movement (as we were called) of the '60s and one of our strengths was that we thought of it that way, as "a movement," not as a string of separate issues. We thought of ourselves as one mass of people moving not in lockstep yet in the same general direction and even as we each spent most of our energy on our own particular issues, we regarded those concentrating on other issues as compatriots to be supported and with who we would actively cooperate whenever the occasion arose.

I fear we have lost that sense of community, to our detriment. So consider this a roundabout way of seconding the call to "bridge the gaps." And it may be most important for straight cis folks (like me) to do it if only because there are so many more of us and one of the gaps that exist is one between LGBTQ+ and cis folks and yeah, when it comes to social and political power, numbers do still matter.

And “LGBTQ+ People (And Allies) Are Not Going Back.”

Finally, from November 2024, in reaction to someone’s blaming issues of LGBTQ+, particularly trans, rights for the election outcome:

Your ostensibly helpful advice boils down to "shut up, be as inoffensive as possible, and hope it gets better someday." I shudder to think where we'd be if women, black folks, and gay and lesbian people had followed your (I'm sure you would claim is) sage advice.

Because “LGBTQ+ People Are Not Going Back!”

To be clear, I still have hope, in fact the conviction, that things will get better, that we are living in a reactionary time, a fear-driven reaction to the changes we have seen and are seeing; a time that once survived will have shown, as previous such times have shown, advancement; a conviction that, to quote what has almost become a cliché but nonetheless is spot on, the moral arc of the universe is long but bends toward justice.

But the time between now and then is not going to be easy. And the more we are aware of - and the more we resist - the now, the sooner it will be the then. In the meantime, hold to the words of William Lloyd Garrison (speaking of slavery) and say to the trimmers, to the “wise voices” who think that struggles for human rights can always be delayed to a more convenient time, to them and their enablers and followers, say:

"I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or to speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; - but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present."

Because “LGBTQ+ People Are Not. Going. Back!”

*If you react by thinking something like “allies are community members,” thank you. I appreciate it.

Now what?

Welcome to Jon Swift Roundup 2024 readers! Please feel free to offer any comments or feedback and check out any of my other posts.

Two notes: The George Will quote was from his syndicated column for January 2, 1995, and was "'Back to 1900' is a serviceable summation of the conservatives' goal." (For those who don't know, Will is what passes for an intellectual on the right.)

And the "another post" mentioned at the end is here.

In the wake of losing an election, some consideration of why your side lost, that is, doing a postmortem, is an entirely reasonable idea.¹

Assuming, that is, the desire is actual analysis and it's done right.

Neither of which we got. No actual analysis and what was done wasn't even done right. So let me start this by laying out my own bias, my own analysis of the "why," admittedly a limited one.

I think the Harris campaign made three significant mistakes. First, she didn't separate herself from Biden on Gaza.² Doing so would surely have cost her some votes but just as surely gained her a good number more.

Second, she began with a message of what could be summarized as "hope and the future" only to turn her back on her base, preferring to vainly seek votes among those all but mythical "moderate" GOPpers and the all too real 1% by campaigning with Liz Cheney and Mark Cuban instead of with UAW President Shawn Fain or other labor and progressive leaders.

Third, the last weeks of the campaign revolved almost entirely around "I'm not Trump." (Which was, interestingly, the same mistake made in 2016.) A legitimate stand, particularly in the face of the genuine threat to democracy, but nowhere near adequate standing alone, because people are almost always going to vote on immediate concerns as opposed to future hypotheticals, even likely ones.

None of that, of course, was raised in postmortems from the corporate media, political big heads, or consultant coterie. Except, that is, to brush by them in their haste to get to the REAL problem.

Oh, no, they cried almost in unison, the result was all because Kamala Harris was way, way too much into "identity politics," in particular in support of transgender folks who, to hear them say it (but not openly) really are kinda weird and who everybody hates and who we should not only throw under the bus, we should back over the corpse a couple of times to be sure.

Dan Moynihan at Can We Still Govern brings us a New York Times tetrarchy:

- There is Bari Weiss, denouncing "running on extraordinarily niche issues that you find on college campuses and in gender studies departments." Forgetting that, as a married lesbian, just a generation ago she and her rights would have been such a "niche issue."

- There is Bret Stephens, insisting that "today’s left increasingly stands for the forcible imposition of bizarre cultural norms." Because regarding basic human rights as worthy of respect is "bizarre."

- And there's Nicholas Kristof, assuring us that Democrats can only compete if they “focus more on minimum wages and child care than pronouns and purity." As if dwelling on "pronouns and purity" described her practice rather than his paranoia.

- And of course, there is Maureen Dowd, smirking the right-wig mantra "woke is broke" and charging

progressives failed to realize that women can be worried both about reproductive rights and their "daughters compet[ing] fairly on the playing field."³

As if loss of reproductive health care was an equal worry to the hypothetical possibility of facing a trans girl on the other school's team.

In the course of this, she approvingly quoted James Carville and Rahm Emanuel and actually called Michael Dukakis an "avatar of elitism," a title that fits her far better.

On top of that, Dowd got extra exposure from Mika Brzezinski of Joe Scarborough's MSNBC morning program, who read the entire thing on-air the day after it was published. Scarborough, for his part,

went on a wildly transphobic rant on [the day after the election] against “men who transition after puberty competing against young girls,” saying that opposing trans-inclusive athletic policies is “not a hard call.”

In other words, it was a buncha damn, comfortable, secure, rich, white people saying that the rights of vulnerable people which are of no benefit to them are therefore unworthy of consideration.

But of course it wasn't just the media elite, the sneering also came from inside the Democratic Party itself.

As I think folks have heard, there was New York Rep. Tom Suozzi declaring the party must “stop pandering to the far left” on trans rights. “I don’t want to discriminate, but I don’t think biological boys should be playing in girls’ sports," he said, adding "Democrats should be saying that.” Which means, of course, that he does want to discriminate.

More surprising to some, there was Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton, offering "I have two little girls. I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat I’m supposed to be afraid to say that,” rather unsubtly patting himself on the back for his supposedly courageous expression of transphobia.

Fortunately, there has been pushback from other Congressional Democrats against these and other trimmers⁴ who are dipping their toe in the waters to see how far they can distance themselves from trans rights without political cost (or better yet, with political praise).

Related to which we now have Jonathan Larsen of The Fucking News reporting that the DNC's search for a new party chair is being defined by people screeching that the party has become too "woke"⁵ and demanding it must "return" to the "center" because they "don’t want to be the freak show party" and do want a party chair "who’s going to be for the guy who drives a truck back home at the end of the day” and I guess women and people of color need not apply for inclusion - unless, I suppose, if they drive trucks (The image of the "guy" "truck driver" came up more than once.⁶)

It appears that's truer than not, since one DNC member described the field of potential chairs as “White Guy Winter,” with the list essentially empty of women or non-white people but including, deity help us, Rahm Emanuel.

All of which goes to raise the point I really wanted to get to. This sort of "we've gone too far" tut-tutting and hand-wringing is neither new nor actually about tans folks except as they serve as the target du jour.

It is, rather, part of an overall effort by the hierarchy of the Democratic Party, the I suppose you could call it legacy party, to find someone, something, some force, to blame for election losses that does not involve, that actively avoids, looking at the campaign itself, looking at the idea that maybe it was the party apparatus that screwed up.

Indeed, it's hard to find any analysis from any such quarter that does not praise the Harris-Walz campaign with terms like "great job" and "no mistakes" while dismissing critiques out it of hand as unproductive or even destructive finger-pointing - while busily pointing destructive fingers at anyone convenient, particularly the vulnerable population of trans folks still struggling for basic recognition of their rights, indeed of their existence. (I say that knowing much the same could be said of a good number of other vulnerable populations; it's just that this time it's trans folks.)

Same as it ever was: After 2016, the same "blame anybody else" game got played. There, the blamed included third party voters, sexism, Russian interference, James Comey re-opening the email-investigation, millennials, and even Bernie Sanders - but not, oh no of course not, the party or the Clinton campaign.

This time it's "wokeness" and trans people, but the real point is the same in each case: to protect the power and position of a party hierarchy more dedicated to their prestige and perks than public benefit and committed to "winning" as a concept rather than as a program of progress.

It other words, it was intended then and is again now to smack down the influence of the actually progressive wing of the party by reasserting the control of the institutional party apparatus.

Which means - coming to the blunt bottom line - that it's time to realize, we have to realize, that the Democrats are not on our side, not on the side of doing what is right and just, not on the side of progress rather than stasis.

Some individual Democrats, yes. The party itself, no, and all the talk about "moving to the center" is about just that: stasis. It's about not advocating anything that does not already have wide support, about following, never leading, about, bluntly, being damn cowards. And doing it even as both public polling and election results on ballot questions says that on a number of those untouchable "too left" issues (including trans rights) the public is already there.

Okay. After all that, you'd think I'm chock full of idea about what to do now.

I'm not.

I'm just sure the one thing we need to do is not give up. To keep going. To seek comfort and find strength in community and, as others have noted, that community is out there and may even be next door.

So we have to, each of us in whatever way we can, just keep going. Just persist. Just be stubborn. If that's too much, then just survive. But like the man in the movie said, "Never give up! Never surrender!" Or, if you prefer a musical reference, "Rejoice, rejoice/We have no choice/But to carry on."

Because it can get better. And comparing ourselves to the 1900 that George Will said the conservatives' goal is to recreate, we have come so far as to astonish the most stoic among us. Even within our own lifetimes we have seen changes to be celebrated and worth building on. And, romantic that I am, I still believe in the line about the moral arc of the universe.

However - and I know it's hard to hear but yes, it's true - it will undoubtedly get worse before it gets better. Which brings me to something else. But that's for another post.

¹Chess grandmaster and one-time world champion Jose Raul Capablanca once said "I have learned more from each of my defeats than I have from all of my victories.”

²Early in her campaign, I thought Harris, who expressions on the need for humanitarian aid was more intense than Biden's, was trying to distance herself from him without openly breaking from the administration of which she was still part. The same issue faced Hubert Humphrey in 1968 over the Indochina War. He finally, "tight-lipped and grim," made the break. She never did, which raises the very real possibility that she didn't separate from him because she never wanted to. However, that doesn't change the judgment that not doing so cost her a good number of votes.

³Recent studies challenge that "concern." One, from 2021 from the Center for American Progress, shows no impact on girls' participation in sports from allowing trans girls to join those teams. Another, published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism in 2024, found that "physical performance of nonathletic trans people who have undergone GAHT for at least 2 years approaches that of cisgender controls." Finally, in October the British Journal of Sports Medicine published a study saying that at least by some measures, transwomen athletes may be at a disadvantage as compared to ciswomen.

⁴"Trimmer" (referring to trimming the sails of a ship) was a term used in labor struggles to refer to those whose support for worker rights shrank as soon as things got tough.

⁵The next time anyone complains about anything being "woke," tell them the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it as "aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)" and ask them why they think that's a bad thing.

⁶You know the saying about generals always planning to fight the previous war? It appears the Dems will go after the "bros," planning to fight the previous election.